Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG

Paul, et al,
I don't agree with Matt's concept that, as long as you can find a "trivial distinction," two projects
should be undertaken with such similarities.  This presents a double drain on resources (people,
meeting space, etc.)  with little immediately apparent benefit.  In my view, the distinction should
have to be significant, not trivial, in order to justify two projects.
I am inclined to support the "merge them and let the everyone bring their proposals to
the table" approach (that Matt seems to think is only be viable "in a perfect world,") for two
1) I think it makes MUCH more sense in terms of resources
2) It might help to persuade .16 to hold its interims at the same time/place as .11/.15/.18/.19
... which I believe is desirable for many reasons, including my selfish one of not having to always
deal with .16 on .18 items via e-mail after the larger joint interim (... not that .16 has been uncooperative
in any way ... on the contrary, Roger and .16 have been quite cooperative, but the simple fact is that
having "split interims" introduces additional delays into the approval and filing of .18 documents, when time
is often tight to begin with ...  and I believe that it also makes it difficult for folks who would like to participate
in, say both .11 and .16 to do so, since the "split interim" approach either results in conflicts in time/location
or the need for additional travel expense which is hard to justify to the management of companies that sponsor
our members' attendance).  I, for one, would like to have the opportunity to participate to some
degree in .16  and to work with them more closely on regulatory matters, ... but can't deal with the conflicts
or additional travel time/expense when their meetings are not co-located with the other wireless WGs ...
Additionally, I think the SEC should frown on any attempt to split a unified project later (without a
sound and compelling reason, where "We just want to do our own thing." doesn't cut it) and also
should hold everyone's feet to the fire to keep focus and not do a "let's do both" standard without
similar good reasons. (I'm sure everyone recalls the issues with the original 3 PHY 802.11 ...)
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:04 PM
To: 'Matthew Sherman';; 'IEEE802'
Subject: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG

Dear SEC,


In the past week, so far Mat Sherman has been the only one to weigh in on the minimal distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG projects on Mobility.  This is an important topic - one that will benefit from discussion on the SEC reflector.  I'm sure there are more opinions on this subject than just Mat's-let's air them on the reflector so that we are better prepared to make an informed decision on how to proceed during our plenary session. 


Remember, the major reasons for requiring PARs to be submitted 30 days in advance of the plenary was to permit enough time for discussion and debate.  Let's take advantage of the time.




--Paul Nikolich


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Sherman []
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 12:37 AM
To: ''; IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG project authorization requests


Hi Paul & Everyone,


I actually have a lot of strong opinions here, but prefer to be brief for now.  Perhaps I'll get boo'd, but I've always been very pro "let the market decide".  In a perfect world, I think only the ECSG PAR should go forward, since in my mind it has the broader scope (allows solutions other than 802.16), and then the 802.16 folks should propose a solution within the ECSG group based on 802.16.  The ECSG PAR might require a few small updates to absorb any minor outages from the 802.16 PAR but I doubt that's an issue.   However, I recognize that if people don't find an outlet in 802, they will probably take it somewhere else.  Even if we force them to merge, they would either try to split later, or (as seems to be the rule these days) come up with a let's do both standard.  So procedurally, I think we should make sure the PARs are distinct it their goals (usually it's not that hard to find some trivial distinction).  We should probably encourage them to have close ties and consider merging if at all possible along the way.  But I feel we should let both go forward if at all possible.



Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:35 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] Mobile Broadband Wireless Access--distinction between the ECSG and 802.16 SG project authorization requests

Dear SEC members,


Both the Executive Committee Study Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access and the 802.16 Mobile Wireless Access Study Group have submitted Project Authorization Requests for projects that, as far as I can tell from the PARs, address the same market and application space.  This concerns me.


The only substantive difference in the PARs that I can see is that the 802.16 SG proposes to amend the 802.16 MAC/PHY to enable mobile operation, while the ECSG does not presume using the 802.16 standard as a starting point.  This confuses me-when we approved the 802.16 SG in July, it was to focus on enhancements to the 802.16a PHY/MAC for 'limited mobility' in the 2-11GHz band, whilst the ECSG was targeting 'high mobility' in the sub 3.5GHz band.  This established some, albeit small, distinction between the ECSG (0-3.5GHz, up to 250km/h) and 802.16 SGs (2-11GHz, limited mobility) activities.  Now, the gap has narrowed-narrowed to the point that I think the SEC must consider whether or not it makes sense to have two projects with such similar scope. 


I would like to hear what other members of the SEC think about the overlap between these two PARs-any opinions out there?




--Paul Nikoich